news:4j2dc.691$BR1.149@okepread03...
> ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message
> news:4074a948$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
> >
> > Anastasia wrote:
> >
> > > ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message
> > > news:407490c5$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > >
>
> (Snip)
>
> > >>>>Anyone can do a hotmail address. I think this is grounds for
applying
> to
> > >>>>hotmail to see who's really stirring all this up.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Uncle Davey, I bet it's one of your lot.
> > >>>
> > >>> On what grounds?
> > >>
> > >>God told him.
> > >>
> > >>Just like God told him that angels don't have cocks.
> > >
> > > I do not mean to be a prude, but please.
> >
> > Sorry, I tend to speak my mind without regard for decorum. I will try
> > to remember that there are ladies present.
>
> It is all right. I actually have no right to make that sort of
demand.
> I confess to a small amount of exasperation with my opponent and it seemed
> inappropriate, but I cannot insist that Christians turn the other cheek,
> even for a mild issue as this, if I am not willing to do so also.
>
Lenny asked the question about how the nephilim reproduced with the
daughters of men in Genesis. I gave him the best answer I could, and he has
twisted it round to make it look as if I have some weird interest in angels'
genitalia.
> > Anyway, it's a great way to yank Davey's chain and watch him howl madly
> > at the moon. He *is* after all great entertainment, in a "car wreck"
> > sort of way.
>
> Perhaps. The Christian in me wishes it were not so, but the realist
in
> me knows there will be those who act as he does; and I think it is prudent
> for some of us to speak up. Mr Periscope cannot be expected to carry the
> load for all of us.
>
> > > Still, I did miss that claim. A reference is available? That
> would
> > > strike me as a strange discussion.
> >
> > It's in the t.o. archives. I forget which thread it's in, but it was an
> > awfully long one . . . . . . .
>
> Talk.origins threads get long quickly.
Lenny asked about the nephilim question so long and so ardently that you
will find it in the archive soon enough.
>
> > Among the things our semi-sane sockpuppet-master/trolling-addict has
> > claimed are (1) faithful Christians can defy gravity and fly,
>
> Was there a Biblical basis for this? That seems rather strange.
>
If faith can move mountains into the sea, then what is it to lift a 55lb
girl, or a 250 kg elderly Jewish lawyer?
> > (2) God saved the coral polyps from Noah's Flood through divine
> intervention (no
> > explanation if this involved wetsuits or itty bitty dive masks or what),
>
> I presume that no explanation was given. In fact, my interest in
> talk.origins is biological as that is my education. I have often wondered
> how things like medusoid and hydroid cnidarians can spring from a single
> 'kind,' which is what I was once told in another discussion and at another
> time, but I have never heard an explanation. I am not sure how they might
> evolve, either, but it is one of the many questions I have for
creationists.
>
We don't know how many cnidarian kinds there were originally, but at an
organism that simple, and with a rapid generation cycle, I would have
thought a great deal of speciation could have occured in 10,000 years.
> > and (3) angels do not have . . . uh . . . genitals, but . . . uh . . .
> > interbred with earth women to produce The Nephilim using genetic
> > engineering techniques (angel DNA and human DNA being,
> > according to his, uh, Divine Opinion, virtually the same).
>
> I am going to have to look that one up! What a bizarre claim!
>
I didn't say that the DNA was virtually the same, I said that angels are
privy from the beginning to knowledge that humans are only now obtaining,
such as genetic engineering, and so they did not need genitalia to breed
with earth women. This argument only came about because Lenny was trapping
me saying it was a contradiction that angels are not given in marriage and
therefore are asexual on the one hand, and yet they bred with earth women in
the Genesis account, and in Sumerian legend as well, for that matter. If I
remember right they were called Ananaki. People who have a low view of
scripture even say this idea was borrowed from the Sumerians, instead of
being jointly true with the Sumerians.
> > Make sure you ask him about all his sockpuppets (especially the
> > "Constance Vigilance" one), and the forged emails, and his vanity
> > newsgroup where he plans his trolling campaigns with his sockpuppet
> > friends. Ask him about his self-admitted trolling addiction. And
> > remind him that he's just an accountant.
>
> I understand, but my goal is to remind him, however harshly, that he
is
> supposed to be a *Christian*.
You called me a demon, not a Christian.
Make your mind up.
>
> > Oh, and ask him for me what the source of his religious authority is . .
>
> My answer, in case you ever choose to ask, is the Scriptures as they
> have been left to me--written by humans but inspired by God--and to some
> degree interpreted by the religious authorities of my Church, the Russian
> Orthodox. But I also defer from arguing fine points of division between
> sects because I accept the idea that God gave us a conscience to follow
our
> hearts and minds. This means that I do have some difficulty with many of
> our teachings. Since there is so much left to interpretation and
division,
> those are the things I do not bother to argue. And if someone is not a
> Christian, they are not going to accept the same philosophical or
religious
> authority that I do. What that means to them is that my 'religious
> authority' is, as Poppa says, "zero, zip, zilch." There are, however,
some
> things that are not open to interpretation by sects and most of those have
> to do with how Christians are expected to behave. Then, as you can see, I
> am rather vocal--probably more so than I should be.
>
Lenny's view is that people should jolly well pipe down about their
religious convictions, unless their religion is atheism, in which case they
should say all they like.
> > . . . I had to CONSTANTLY remind him that he is not God's
> > Messenger,
>
> I would say that all Christians are God's messengers, but I also
accept
> that not everyone sees that, will accept that, or believes it.
Oddly enough, I never even claimed to be God's messenger. I just had to ask
him to stop going ad hominem the whole time and deal with the issues I had
in the thoughts I gave. He refused to do that, and kept on this 'why should
you be in possession of any more knowledge than my pizza delivery boy' riff.
I said 'fine, bring him on, then' but no pizza delivery boy materialised on
the group.
> I see no
> reason to behave in antagonistic fashion to those who disagree with me on
> that point, since so much is left to emotion and discernment. Faith is
not
> a rational process and it is not based on evidence, which is one reason
why
> I think we should practice an intelligent faith, but I find some
apologetics
> to be worse than useless.
>
> > not any more divine than any other mere mortal,
>
> Mortals are not divine, by definition. :)
>
> > doesn't know any more about God than anyone else alive does,
>
> If God does exist and governs the Universe as we Christians tend to
> believe, then he is quite outside of our meager abilities to 'know.'
>
> > and doesn't have any more religious authority than my next door
> > neighbor or my car mechanic or the kid who delivers my pizzas.
>
> I believe that to be fair. We are ultimately left to our own
authority
> and it is good for us while not being good for others. None of us has a
> monopoly on the mind or intent of God but God Himself.
>
> > He, uh, seems to have forgotten all that .
> > . . . . So call him a self-righteous arrogant prick who thinks
> > (literally) that he is holier than everyone else. He likes that.
>
> I would actually believe that he does. He does seem to feel like a
> martyr.
>
> > Of course, you COULD just drag him in here to talk.origins so I can ask
> > him myself, but "Uncle" seems to still have a bruise on his . . . uh . .
> > . butt from the last time he got run out of t.o . . . . . . .
>
> Yes.
>
> > And if you ever get to talk to "Dr" Gastrich, ask him the same question
> > about the source of his religious authority -- he seems awfully
> > reluctant to answer it.
>
> "Dr" Gastrich does not answer questions because he feels no
obligation
> to do so. He puts himself above everyone else and above God.
Unfair and judgemental.
>
> > Oh, and make sure to ask the good "Dr" why his
> > website still refers to himself as "Dr" after he told us at t.o that he
> > wasn't going to call himself a "Dr" any longer.
>
> I agree that this is an *excellent* question.
He obviously hasn't got round to it yet.
>
> > And ask him about the
> > time God tuned up his Honda to get better gas mileage.
>
> ???
>
> > And ask to hear
> > some of the jokes that The Almighty tells "Dr" Gastrich as he does his
> > laundry.
>
> ???
>
> > (No kidding, I am completely totally one-thousand percent serious.)
>
> That is terrible!
>
> Anastasia
>
Hmmn. Take Lenny with a pinch of salt.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 |
|